vi A MANUAL OF THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA, 
possible. The older writers desired notoriety with the least labour, and their 
ambition was quantity, not quality. Consequently, accuracy in detail was 
not possible, as such would have curtailed production. The aim of the writers 
has ever been to allow of good work to those who, through lack of opportunity 
of access to complete literature, are dependent upon few books. Hence the 
nomenclature in this work is more complete than has ever been offered to any 
students in any previous book. The International Laws and Opinions have 
been followed in detail, save in the one exception of similarly formed words 
of the same origin. At the present time the recommendation regarding 
the acceptance of such names is a dead-letter, and so we have treated it as 
such, especially in view of the preparation of authoritative lists by Committees 
of World Ornithologists who have, so far, agreed to our methods of usage. 
There is nothing more to be said on this “ contentious ”’ subject, as there 
need be no further discussions, save where a few of the older men stubbornly 
argue non-debatable items. 
Genus splitting has long been confused in the arguments of careless 
commentators with nomenclature, but it has no connection and should be 
dealt with in the consideration of classification; we do not agree with the 
famous ornithologist who considered the nomination of a bird-skin in a cabinet 
the highest work achievable, and consequently demurred at name changes. 
II.—CLASSIFICATION. 
In the Austral Avian Record, Vol. IV., pp. 29-48, we have given a sketch 
of the scheme we propose to follow in this book, and we will not detail it 
here, but cite the allied groups as we deal with the Austral orders, etc. It 
is necessary, however, to indicate the present state of bird systematics by 
synopsising the characters hitherto utilised. 
Superficial features were first employed in a superficial manner but 
more recently attention has been given to the growth stages whereby con- 
vergence has been noted and its significance recognised. Thus the tarsal 
covering may show certain features in the adult, and examination of the 
nestling prove the adult formation to be secondary. It was long ago evident 
that assistance could be gained from study of internal features, and a few 
anatomists wrote essays on particular items, such as Nitzsch’s on the Carotid 
Arteries. Nitzsch also showed that taxonomic evidence might be gained 
from study of the pterylosis of birds, and his well-known work on Pterylography 
is a standard, but little work has since been done on the subject. Then came 
the epoch-making study by Huxley of the skulls of birds and his revolutionary 
re-classification thereof. Had the superficial characters been thoroughly 
understood his essay would have caused little dismay but simply advanced 
our science a little more rapidly. As it was, the anatomists continued their 
researches and working upon new ground were apt to overrate the differences 
observed. The culmination appeared in a series of articles which laid stress 
on the shape of the nasal openings, the presence or absence of ceca, the presence 
